Author
Topic: CPU and GPU benchmarks (Read 71568 times)

Generally you wont see that many hard faults per second but the fact that you have some here and there will slow things down. My first batch of RAM should be here tomorrow and the rest later this moth. In theory there shouldbe some speed gains by eliminating the dumping of RAM to a temp spot on the HDD. I will test this out by running the same 100 photos, 500 photos, and 1000 photo sets on 16GB, 32GB, 64GB and 128GB. Once I am done I will post my results to see if I am correct.

So, it looks like the 1600mhz ram is killing me in stage 3, it's only running triple channel, but I'm going to try some quad channel 2133 CAS 11 next week if I can get it to OC properly on this motherboard. I'll post an update if these scores improve. The chips are unlocked, so I may overclock them a mite bit to 3.4/4.0(turbo) or so and see how much it helps. They seem to run about 3.6 when Photoscan is cranking acording to CPU-Z. Not quite double the performance of 1 2687W, but from 12.74min to 7.06 is nothing to scoff at. Also doubles the performance of an i7 4960X, and this rig did not cost twice what that one would (I canabalized some parts from an old build, some things would have changed were I buying this stuff new), but price/performance I'm pretty happy. Plus cinebench R15 scores are 2176 CPU and 60.38fps in OpenGL, so that's nice.

Edit: Tweaked some things, including the memory timing which was off. Pulled 4.18min on the test.

This is quite amazing compare to Annadtechs tests! You are 3 times faster than there fastest rig tested.

Do the anandtech test cover also GPU performance in agisoft? I found the cpu performance graphs, but i didnt find any graphs for gpu performance, it seems they are testing GPUs only in games, is that true or did i missed the graphs/tables?

Can we not, as community, all run a test of a single set and publish our times and hardware specs :-)

The same set of data has been ran through all the benchmarks on this entire post, the 50 image building sample set that Agisoft has on the downloads page. I just ran it at two different settings high/medium and high/high to get a more accurate results.

Ran the test on Ultra and this time the load went up to around 80% on the cards. Much better performance now. Under boost the clock speed stayed at between 1300-1316mhz on the 2 EVGA Titan X Superclocked cards.

Ran the test on Ultra and this time the load went up to around 80% on the cards. Much better performance now. Under boost the clock speed stayed at between 1300-1316mhz on the 2 EVGA Titan X Superclocked cards.

Ran another test this time with SLI disabled and only using 1 card in Agisoft. All CPU cores disabled and exactley the same settings as before. High setting on dense cloud instead om medium that i used for the first test.. Pretty good performance i would say! The GPU load went up to 95% now for some reason. Still hitting 1316mhz as max clock speed so no change there.

Another test on High dense cloud setting. This time SLI diabled but both GPUs enabled in Agisoft. For some reason the performance drops a bit per card compared to using a single card.. Wonder why that is? I don´t think its heat related as the cards still run on 1316 mhz, same as running a single card. Titan X seems to be around 40%-60% faster then 980 in Agisoft and only use 250W. So if you are building a serious hard core system Titan X might be worth it after all even for Agisoft?